Reformation and Justification

[Turgonian]

ATTENTION: No discussion about the nature and grounds of justification here!

Rob Koons is a former Lutheran who converted to Catholicism. He has written down his reasons here (a PDF file). He wonders if the Reformation was justified, and thinks he can do so by evaluating the Catholic and Protestant doctrines on justification. Is division over the issue of justification a justification for division and issuing out of the church? Anyway, like I said, I'm not looking for opinions on justification here, but I would like to know whether you agree with the starting premiss which his whole piece rests on:

R. Koons

I've always thought that the doctrine of justification is the crux of the Lutheran/Catholic controversy. If the Roman church has been in error on this point, to the extent of condemning the true understanding of the basis of our righteousness before God, then the Reformation was fully justified. Conversely, if Rome has not been in error, if her position can be charitably interpreted as a faithful exposition of the gospel and her condemnations (at Trent) as the rejection of genuine errors, then the Reformation, which destroyed the visible unity of the Church and broke ancient bonds of fellowship, could not be justified. All other issues are secondary: sola scriptura, the role of the papacy, purgatory, the veneration and invocation of the saints, and so on.

© source where applicable

[RCNicholas]

ATTENTION: No discussion about the nature and grounds of justification here!

Rob Koons is a former Lutheran who converted to Catholicism. He has written down his reasons here (a PDF file). He wonders if the Reformation was justified, and thinks he can do so by evaluating the Catholic and Protestant doctrines on justification. Is division over the issue of justification a justification for division and issuing out of the church? Anyway, like I said, I'm not looking for opinions on justification here, but I would like to know whether you agree with the starting premiss which his whole piece rests on:

It seems like you're asking, essentially, whether it's ok to disagree with the Church and teach heresy. Catholics would, of course, say no. Christ established the Church as the pillar and ground of the truth, and it is by the Church's infallible teachings that the beliefs of individuals are to be judged. If an individual, such as Martin Luther, disagrees with the Church in a matter of faith or morals, of course excommunication seems in order.

[RanRan]

R. Koons

I've always thought that the doctrine of justification is the crux of the Lutheran/Catholic controversy....

© source where applicable

The crux was much more practical - the fleecing of the people with indulgences to build St. Peters. If the RC can put up with Mary as co-redeemer, they could have put up with Luther - as long as he didn't mess with the cash-cow.

[rhutchin]

The crux was much more practical - the fleecing of the people with indulgences to build St. Peters. If the RC can put up with Mary as co-redeemer, they could have put up with Luther - as long as he didn't mess with the cash-cow.

That's the way I understand it. The reformation was a reaction against the system of indulgences that allowed people to pay a sum of money to gain forgiveness for their sin - and thereby to be justified. Maybe the poor could not afford to pay for their forgiveness and this was one factor prompting Luther to react against the indulgences for favoring the rich.

[Turgonian]

We're talking about dogma now. The St. Peter's has been built already. This was the point of debate:

...if Rome has not been in error, if her position can be charitably interpreted as a faithful exposition of the gospel and her condemnations (at Trent) as the rejection of genuine errors, then the Reformation, which destroyed the visible unity of the Church and broke ancient bonds of fellowship, could not be justified. All other issues are secondary...

[themuzicman]

And even more foundationally, if the RCC was wrong, then its claims to be the infallible pillar of truth are incorrect, as well.

Michael

[Turgonian]

Do you agree with the above quote of Rob Koons?

If the RC can put up with Mary as co-redeemer...

They can't. Mary is not co-Redeemer, but co-Redemptrix. This is a quote from an article on Mary as co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocatrix:

Ronald L. Conte, Jr.

4. The "co-" prefix in co-Redemptrix refers to Mary's cooperation with us; it does not mean that Mary is co-Redeemer, not even with and under Christ. (The "co-" prefix should not be capitalized, since it refers to our mere human efforts towards our salvation; the "R" in co-Redemptrix should be capitalized since it refers to Divine efforts towards our salvation.)

5. Mary is not a co-Redeemer and is not able to save anyone, not even with and under Christ. Christ alone redeems; Mary merely immerses herself in all that Christ does toward our redemption. Her role is not co-redemptive.

© source where applicable

[Tercel]

I would argue that the single most important thing is the attainment of eternal life. Therefore if anyone teaches things which, from someone else's point of view, prevent the attainment of eternal life by followers of those false teachings, then a split in the church would be entirely justified. Hence, if in the Protestant view, Catholics are not saved. Or if, in the Catholic view, Protestants are not saved. Such would definitely justify a split.

Since Protestant doctrine teaches faith is sufficient to justify, Catholics who followed a teaching of both faith and works would indeed achieve justification as a result of their faith, according to the Protestants. Similarly, the Reformers generally believed in predestination - and that doctrine means that no amount of false (or correct) teaching can ever change the pre-decreed eternal status of individuals. Hence, from the Protestant point of view, the Catholic church's false teaching on the issue of justification does not affect the eternal salvation of its members.

Whereas, from the Catholic point of view...? This one is more difficult to decide. Catholics teach the necessity of faith and works for justification, and hence any Protestants who only have faith and not works would be potentially in danger of hell. Though the Catholic doctrines of purgatory and Inclusivism would seem to imply that Protestants are probably not really in serious danger of hell.

Hence, neither the Catholic nor Protestant teachings would, according to the other, prevent adherents from attaining eternal life. Hence I conclude that this is not a life and death issue, and in my view probably not of sufficient importance in and of itself to justify a split between Protestants and Catholics.

[Turgonian]

The Reformers believed in predestination, but also in justification by faith. They were not fatalistic, because they believed the Lord worked by means. Hence, He had not only elected persons, but had also decreed the means by which they would hear the Gospel and be saved.

As I understand it, after Vatican II, the Catholic Church has become quite inclusivistic. Before that, however, things seem to have been different. The Council of Florence stated that...

Council of Florence

[The holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.

© source where applicable

And they call this an ecumenical council. Anyhow, this council was not a century old when Luther did the trick with the theses in Wittenberg.

[RanRan]

They can't. Mary is not co-Redeemer, but co-Redemptrix.

Fun with words. The early apostolic church never entertained the idea - not even in speculation. This is getting off track.

The Reformation sparked the 30 Years War - the RCC manipulated that war - Justification was a minor issue compared to Rome's fear of losing power and control. It was not a 'theological' war by any stretch.

[Turgonian]

Actually, it matters a lot whether Mary works together with us or worked together with Christ. One Catholic writer claimed that we are redeemed by Christ's blood and Mary's tears. That is rank heresy.

The Reformation was, or at least claimed to be, theological in nature. And Doktor Martin certainly did not have in mind bloodshed and war involving 'all manner of remorseless metal' when he put hammer to nail.

Like the construction of the great cathedral, the Thirty Years' War is past, mutual violence has all but subsided, and here I am, wondering whether the self-proclaimed reasons of the Reformers (who didn't reform anything) are good enough, or not.

[RanRan]

Like the construction of the great cathedral, the Thirty Years' War is past, mutual violence has all but subsided, and here I am, wondering whether the self-proclaimed reasons of the Reformers (who didn't reform anything) are good enough, or not.

Things had to change - power corrupts - whole churches have been humbled in the past. The internet has helped communication - there's always hope in Christ's church - maybe another Karl Barth will spring up. Who knows?

[Tercel]

The Reformers believed in predestination, but also in justification by faith. They were not fatalistic, because they believed the Lord worked by means. Hence, He had not only elected persons, but had also decreed the means by which they would hear the Gospel and be saved.

Sounds like double-speak to me. If people are predestined by God to do something, then nothing the Catholic church or anything anyone else does or doesn't do can change that. In other words the Reformers would have to believe that the Catholic church was not through its false teachings preventing the eternal salvation of God's elect. If they didn't believe this, then they were clearly inconsistent with their own doctrine of predestination. (They may well have been inconsistent on this subject) The Reformation view was not like Arminianism where God pre-ordains the means of salvation but not the people themselves - in the Reformation view God preselects individuals to eternal salvation.

As I understand it, after Vatican II, the Catholic Church has become quite inclusivistic. Before that, however, things seem to have been different.

Yes, true.

Therefore according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was not preventing the eternal salvation of the elect. Whereas, according to the Catholic Church, Protestants were. Thus IMO, a sufficient reason for a split from a Catholic POV, but not sufficient reason from a Protestant POV. (And, furthermore, applying Pascal's Wager, a good reason to be a Catholic at the time.)

[James Peter]

I'm pretty certain that if Cajetan had actually sat down and discussed Theology with Luther rather than screaming 'Recant! Recant! Recant!' then the schism could have been avoided. At that point in time the issue really was indulgences - and even then not the existence of indulgences but rather the abuse of indulgences by certain individuals. Luther's point, initially, was that indulgences without repentance were worthless and he showed that this was the Church's position as well. The problem was that in the name of a cheap buck the church was tolerating dodgy salesmen.

The early Luther was really rather Augustinian and his views on justification could have sat comfortably within the spectrum of Christendom at the time. It was only after he was declared a heretic that he really developed his strong anti-catholic sentiments. Arguably if he had never had to run and hide for a year he would never have reached many of those conclusions. Those conclusions were necessary because if he could not devise a new systematic theology which excluded the Church at Rome he had to accept he was going to hell. Essentially his theology was one of self-preservation and it received popular support for political reasons. The Elector of Wittenberg only protected him in his attack on indulgences because the sale of indulgences was having an adverse effect on the profitability of his relic collection. The early Luther had no problem with people paying to go and touch a relic and receive grace through it...

I guess to answer the initial question:

(1) While Justification may have become the key issue of the reformation it wasn't initially so. It was important because it answered the question 'Can I defy Rome and still go to heaven?' Without Luther's new model of justification people could not have embraced the Reformation but the model of justification was not the heart of the issue - even though it became the big theological centre piece.

(2) You need to distinguish between several different models of justification within the Reformation. You have the early position of Luther, which was essentially Augustine's - a rejection of some 12th century catholic theology but certainly nothing 'new'. Then you have the eventual 'Reformed' position. As well as that you have the positions of people like the anabaptists, Zwingli etc. Not to forget the position luther eventually arrived at.

Anyway, the driving force of the Reformation was anti-Roman sentiment. People were tired of paying taxes to Rome, of corrupt and powerful clergy and so on. The culture however was such that only by destroying the Roman claim that 'There is no salvation outside the Church' was revolution possible. Luther accidentally gave people such an option when he attacked the Church's salvific model. It liberated people who felt oppressed and led to a harsh and protracted conflict.

Was the Reformation justified? Not solely on the basis that Luther's understanding of justification in 1519. As much as Protestants would like the reformation to be all about the gospel breaking free from a 'babylonian captivity' it really wasn't. It was a political revolution, a rebellion that was the product of mismanagement of the Holy Roman Empire. Without the theology such a revolution would not have been possible - but the theologu, as much as it fired the public imagination, was little more than an excuse. That much can be seen from the surveys that the reformers themselves conducted in the 1540s. For the most part people continued to believe and do what they had always done. A small, more educated group in the cities actually embraced the ideas but for 90% of the population of Germany the change was no more than cosmetic.

[Whipartist]

ATTENTION: No discussion about the nature and grounds of justification here!

Rob Koons is a former Lutheran who converted to Catholicism. He has written down his reasons here (a PDF file). He wonders if the Reformation was justified, and thinks he can do so by evaluating the Catholic and Protestant doctrines on justification. Is division over the issue of justification a justification for division and issuing out of the church? Anyway, like I said, I'm not looking for opinions on justification here, but I would like to know whether you agree with the starting premiss which his whole piece rests on:

R. Koons

I've always thought that the doctrine of justification is the crux of the Lutheran/Catholic controversy. If the Roman church has been in error on this point, to the extent of condemning the true understanding of the basis of our righteousness before God, then the Reformation was fully justified. Conversely, if Rome has not been in error, if her position can be charitably interpreted as a faithful exposition of the gospel and her condemnations (at Trent) as the rejection of genuine errors, then the Reformation, which destroyed the visible unity of the Church and broke ancient bonds of fellowship, could not be justified. All other issues are secondary: sola scriptura, the role of the papacy, purgatory, the veneration and invocation of the saints, and so on.

© source where applicable

Speaking from a Protestant perspective, the issue is justified in that many hold that those who believe in anything beyond faith alone, have fallen from grace, and hence Rome has fallen from grace. From this perspective, to say that faith is not enough, is to loose faith altogether. Many Protestants see faith's content as being directed towards Protestant theology primiarily, and towards God secondarily. It's not how you live, it's what you believe about salvation and specifically justification, that gets you justified. Once you've acknowledged you're a sinner and prayed the sinners prayer, trusting in Christ alone for eternal life, then you're saved. But if you instead go try to earn salvation by works, you've fallen from grace. The central tennant of evangelicalism is that we can't earn our salvation. That's how I think the division is usually justified.

This is not my current perspective, but I used to see things that way and it was confusing. When I started to learn that faith was directed towards God instead of a bunch of theological and exclusivistic ideas about soteriology, then my life began to change.